combat_begin_turn

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the call 'succeeds and reports the actions left without resetting anything' and that it refuses calls for non-active actors, revealing both side-effect absence and authorization-style constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each following sentence adds a necessary behavioral edge case: normal auto-opening, success behavior, and refusal behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, mostly no-op confirmation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, side effects, and error behavior. It even reports what the call returns ('actions left') in sufficient detail for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the prose ties the sole required parameter to the active actor: calls 'for the active actor' succeed and calls 'for anyone else' are refused. It does not explicitly name actor_id as the parameter or say where to obtain it, but it supplies meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm the active actor's turn is open' and immediately clarifies the key nuance that turns already open themselves. It distinguishes the tool from combat_start by explaining that combat_start opens the first turn, so an agent can tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says this call is 'normally unnecessary' and explains why: combat_start and resolved actions already open turns. It also gives clear success/refusal conditions: calling for the active actor succeeds, calling for anyone else is refused, because only the active actor may act.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.